Breast Cancer Screening and

Detection

Mary L. Gemignani MD,MPH

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Topics for Today

• To understand screening and diagnostic

modalities used for breast cancer

detection

• To understand controversies regarding

screening mammography

Breast Cancer Risk

• 207,090 new cases of

breast cancer estimated

in 2010

– 39,840 cancer-related

deaths

– Accounts for 28% of all

cancers in women

• Screening has improved

earlier detection

– Average US woman has

12.6% lifetime risk

of breast cancer

Jemal A, et al. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60: 277-300.

Cancer Incidence Rates*

Women, U.S., 1975-2006

* Age adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population

Source: American Cancer Society, 2010

Increased use of mammography

New York, 2007 124.2/100,000

Cancer Death Rates*

Women, United States, 2005

* Age adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population

Source: American Cancer Society, 2010

Risk Factors

• Major

– Age

– Family history

• BRCA

– Prior breast cancer

– Atypical ductal hyperplasia

– LCIS

– Ionizing radiation

• Mantle radiation for

Hodgkin’s disease

• Minor

– Early age at menarche

– Late age of menopause

• 2.8%/year after the age of

50

– Nulliparity

– First child >30 years

– Postmenopausal obesity

A Woman’s Chance for Breast

Cancer as Determined by Age

• Age 30

• Age 40

• Age 50

• Age 60

• Age 70

• Age 80

• Ever

• 1 out of 2,212 0.5%

• 1 out of 235 4.2%

• 1 out of 54 18.4%

• 1 out of 23 24.3%

• 1 out of 14 17.2%

• 1 out of 10 22.4%

• 1 out of 8

New cases/Decade

Breast Cancer Screening

• Early detection is a key factor

• Components of screening:

– BSE: breast self-examination

– PE: physical examination by trained

personnel

– Mammography

Principles of Screening

Purpose of screening is to test a large defined population at an

acceptable cost

• Disease should be important

• Disease must be able to be found when asymptomatic

• Treatment at earlier stages should offer better outcomes

– Direct correlation between breast tumor size and mortality

– Early treatment may be less treatment (eg: omission of

chemotherapy in small T1a breast cancers)

Smith et al. Diseases of the Breast, 2010

Guidelines for Screening

• Breast self exam starting

at age 20

• Ages 20-39: physical exam

every 1-3 years

• Age 40+: annual physical

exam annual

mammography

American Cancer Society, 2003

BSE (Breast Self-Examination)

• Widely promoted as a means of

reducing breast cancer mortality

– Little evidence to support

its efficacy

• Only 2 randomized trials

– WHO trial (Russia)

1985-19901

– Shanghai trial 1989-19912

• No routine mammography screening

• No significant difference in

number of cancers

– Increase biopsies in

BSE group

– Efficacy in conjunction with other

screening modalities not addressed

1. Semiglazov VF, et al. Eur J Epidemiol. 1992;8(4):498-502. 2. Black WC, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87(10):720-731.

Screening by Physical

Examination • No clinical trial comparing PE to

no screening

– PE arm often included in mammography screening trials

• Detects small numbers of cancers • important in women who do not receive regular mammograms

• less than age 40

• Opportunity to discuss breast cancer risk and awareness

• In underdeveloped countries, interest in PE as screening

– Mammography unaffordable or unavailable

Jatoi I. Am J Surg. 1999;177(6):518-524.

Physicians’ Abilities To Detect

Breast “Lump”

• Pennypacker silicone model

• 5 models with 18 lumps – size : 0.3, 0.5, 1.0 cm

– hardness: 3 kinds

– depth: medium or deep

JAMA,1985;253:2224

Physicians’ Ability To Detect

Breast “Lump”

• FACTORS NOT

INFLUENCING

DETECTION

– Depth of lump in

model

– Specialty of physician

– Level of training

– Years of experience

– Technique of search

• FACTORS

INFLUENCING

DETECTION

– Size of lump

– Hardness

– Length of time used

for search

JAMA,1985;253:2224

Mammography Screening Guidelines

ACOG, ACS, ACR, NCI

• 40-50 years:

every 1-2 years

– ACS every year starting at

age 40

• 50 years: every year

Major Controversies Concerning

Screening Mammography

• Does Screening Reduce mortality?

• At what age should screening start and end?

• How often should women be screened?

• Does the benefit of screening outweigh the risks

(or inconvenience) in all age groups

Most Recent Controversy

The US Preventive Task Force

• Searched Cochrane database and Medline for reported RCT for mammography screening as well as trials of screening MRI, CBE and BSE

• Purpose “ net benefit” – effectiveness of mammography screening in women 40-49 and >70 yrs

– effectiveness of clinical breast exam and BSE

– determine the harms of screening

• Recommendations for general female population – not high risk groups

• Studies were considered and included in the meta-analysis on the basis of quality

Nelson H D et al. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:727-737

Randomized trials of screening

mammography

Study Baseline Study Year

Age Screening interval (mo)

Mortality Reduction (yrs of f/u)

HIP 1963 40-64 12 23% (18)

Edinburgh 1979 45-64 24 29% (14)

Gothenburg 1982 39-59 39-49

18 21% (11) 44% (11)

Stockholm 2002 40-64 24-28 26% (11)

Malmo 1976-1978 45-70 18-24 36% (20)

Swedish Two-County (2 trials)

1977 40-74 24-33 30% (20)

Age 1991 39-41 12 17% (11)

CNBSS-1,-2 1980 40-49, 50- 12 -7% (16)

USPSTF Recommendations 2009

1. Recommendation against routine screening mammography in women aged 40-49

2. Biennial screening mammography in women 50-74

3. Recommendation against teaching BSE

4. Current evidence is insufficient to assess benefits/harms of:

Screening in women age >75

CBE

Digital mammography/MRI

Pooled RRs for Breast Cancer Mortality From Mammography Screening Trials for All Ages.

Nelson H D et al. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:727-737

©2009 by American College of Physicians

Concerns with USPSTF Recommendations

for Women Age 40-49

• USPSTF meta-analysis showed RR of

breast cancer mortality decreased to 0.85

with screening, however – Magnitude of benefit may be underestimated

– Screening interval of 2 years may be too long in

younger women • Younger women have higher proportion of aggressive tumors –

higher mortality

Biennial screening: USPSTF

models

Costs of Screening

• Radiation exposure

• Pain during procedures

• Anxiety/distress

• False-positive, false-

negative mammography

results, additional

imaging, biopsies

• Overdiagnosis

• False-Positive

– 98/1000 screening rounds

(age 40-49)

– 1 cancer detected

• 556 women have

mammogram

• 47 additional imaging

• 5 biopsies

More Agreements than

Disagreements

• Overall reduction in breast cancer mortality in women 40-74

• Failure of one third of American women to have screenings is a public health problem

• Mammography is an imperfect test • fail to detect many ER negative BC

• false positives are common

• Mammography may lead to overdiagnosis • elderly

• Despite these limitations best breast cancer screening tool available for the general population

What about Screening Under

Age 40?

Condition Screening Guidelines

History of breast cancer or LCIS Annually from diagnosis

First-degree relative with premenopausal breast cancer

10 years earlier than relative’s age at diagnosis: not younger than age 25

Hodgkin’s disease and mantle radiation

Initiate 8 years after radiation

BRCA 1, 2 carriers

Initiate age 25 to 35: depends on adequacy of

first mammogram MRI

ACS Guidelines For Cancer Screening

With MRI As An Adjunct To

Mammography

• Women with strong family history of breast

and ovarian cancer

– BRCA mutation carriers

• Radiation to chest wall as in Hodgkin’s

disease

• Previous biopsies, LCIS or atypia

Salsow D. et al. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:75-89.

Screening Mammography

• Diagnostic mammography differs from

screening mammography

– Asymptomatic women

– Detect clinically occult breast cancer

• Accuracy depends upon nature

of breast

– Could vary from 70-98% depending upon

breast density

Bird RE. Radiology. 1990;177(2):587

Breast Composition

Pattern Density

1 Almost entirely fat

2 Scattered fibroglandular densities

3 Heterogeneously dense

4 Extremely dense

Breast Density

Dense Predominantly Fatty

Mammographic Views

• 2 views of the breast

– Craniocaudal view

– Mediolateral oblique view

• Pectoral muscle should be

identified to level of nipple

• Breast compression

– Eliminate motion

and blurring

– Uniform thickness

– Minimize radiation dose

BI-RADSTM

BI-RADSTM

Assessment

O Need additional imaging evaluation – assessment incomplete

1 Negative

2 Benign finding

3 Probably benign finding – short interval follow-up suggested

4* Suspicious abnormality – biopsy should be considered

5 Highly suggestive of malignancy – appropriate action should be taken

6 Known biopsy; proven malignancy; appropriate action should be taken

Subdivision of Category 4 into 4a, 4b, and 4c, for probabilities for malignancy.

Short-term Follow-up

for “Probably Benign” Lesions

• BI-RADS Category 3 lesions

• single or multiple circumscribed masses

• single or multiple groups of rounded or

punctate calcifications

– 0.5% to 2% frequency of carcinoma

• Short-interval follow-up mammography

Sickles E. Radiology 1991;179:463-468.

BI-RADSTM Categories

• Useful predictors of malignancy

• Category 4: suspicious abnormality

• 29% to 34% frequency of carcinoma

• Subdivision into 4a,4b,and 4c

• Category 5: highly suggestive of malignancy

• 81% to 94% frequency of carcinoma

• Biopsy is generally recommended for BI-RADS 4 and 5

Screening Cost

• 2% will undergo surgical biopsy with first

mammogram

– 60-90% mammographically directed reveal

benign disease

• Surgical procedures are the greatest cost

of screening

• Mammography 1/3 of total cost

Yield of Nonpalpable Breast

Cancer

• 20% of biopsies will

be cancer

– 50% DCIS

• 5-10 cancers per

1000 screened

at start

• 2-3 cancers per 1000

screened afterward

Abnormal Mammogram

Evaluation

• Additional mammographic views

– same day

– patient called back

• Other imaging modalities

– ultrasound

– MRI

Abnormal Findings:

Calcifications

• Intermediate level of concern

• amorphous / indistinct

– “flake shaped”

– small or hazy

• Higher probability of malignancy • pleomorphic

– varying size and shape (<0.5 mm)

• heterogeneous

– granular

– casting (fine / linear / branching)

– discontinuous

Calcifications: Distribution

• Grouped or clustered

• multiple in less than 2 cc of tissue

• Linear

• Segmental

• suggests multifocal disease

• Regional

• scattered in a large volume of tissue

• Diffuse / scattered

• random arrangement

Palpable Mass: Mammography

• Negative mammogram

should not delay further

investigation

of palpable mass

• Diagnostic uses

– Survey remainder

of breast

– Screen contralateral breast

Diagnostic Methods

• Fine-needle aspiration (FNA)

- Rapid, minimal discomfort, no incision complicating

local therapy, immediate results - Cannot reliably distinguish in situ from invasive cancer

- False-negatives

- Requires skilled cytopathologist (sensitivity 80-95%)

• Core-needle biopsy

- Rapid, minimal to moderate discomfort, no surgical incision

- Interpreted by general pathologist

- Some false-negatives

- Sampling error with larger lesions ( 20 to 50% of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia upstaged to DCIS)

Triple Diagnosis

• Examination

• Mammography

• FNAB

* If there is any

discordance between

these, excisional biopsy

recommended

Other Screening Methods?

• Whole breast ultrasound

• Magnetic resonance imaging

• Full-field digital mammogram

Ultrasound Uses

• To evaluate a focal mass

identified on

a mammogram

• To evaluate a palpable

lump

– Distinguish a cyst

or fluid-filled mass from a

solid lesion

• To guide interventional

procedures

Role of Ultrasound in Screening

• Poor use as screening tool

– Cannot replace mammography

• Microcalcifications

– High false positive

• May be too sensitive for detection of breast abnormalities

that are benign

• Current studies evaluating use

in patients with dense breasts

on mammogram • Marked improvement in US technology

Screening With Combined Mammography Plus

Ultrasound Compared With Mammography Alone

ACRIN Study

• 2700 high risk women – Mean age was 53

– 53% had a personal hx of Breast cancer

– 39 developed breast cancer in the 1 yr of follow up and one metastatic melanoma in lymph nodes

• Mammography alone detected 12 cancers mammography plus sono detected 31 – sono alone detected 12

– 9 detected by neither

• The diagnostic accuracy for mammography was 0.78 and increased to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96) for mammography plus ultrasound (P = .003).

Berg, W. A. et al. JAMA 2008;299:2151-2163.

Copyright restrictions may apply.

Berg, W. A. et al. JAMA 2008;299:2151-2163.

Summary of Performance Characteristics of Screening With Combined Mammography Plus Ultrasound Compared With Mammography Alone at

the Participant Level

MRI

• High sensitivity in diagnosis of breast cancer 86% to 100%

• Limitations

– poor specificity 37% to 97%

– expensive

– requires intravenous contrast

– technology for MRI-guided biopsy not widely available

– Inconsistent interpretation between centers

MR Imaging of the Breast

• In the diagnostic setting

– MRI has high (>90%) sensitivity for the visualization

of invasive breast cancer

– MRI can visualize DCIS

• Sensitivity variable

– MRI can detect mammogram,

ultrasound, or physical exam occult

breast cancer

• Invasive and DCIS

Clinical Applications MRI

• Present uses – Implant rupture

– Worrisome lumpectomy bed

• Old scar/fibrosis vs tumor recurrence

– In planning surgical treatment in women already diagnosed

• Neoadjuvant chemo

• Screening for high- risk women – BRCA carriers

MRI Screening of Known or Suspected

Carriers of BRCA 1 and BRCA 2

• Reported breast cancer rate approximately 3-

4% per year1-3

• 6% prevalence in mutation carriers2

• 1/3-1/2 of cancers seen only on MRI1-2

• False positive rate 6-14%2-3

1. Kuhl CK, et al. Radiology. 2000;215(1):267-279. 2. Warner E, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(15):3524-3531. 3. Morris EA, et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(3):619-626.

MRI: Breast Cancer Screening

• Patient with a strong family

history of

breast cancer

• Mammogram reveals dense

breast

• MRI reveals two 7mm

enhancing lesions in the

superior lateral aspect of the

left breast

– Biopsy: invasive

ductal carcinoma

MRI Screening in Mutation

Carriers

• Now recommended on basis of

– Higher sensitivity than mammography

– High detection rates

– Interval cancer risk with mammography-based

screening

• Impact on stage at diagnosis, survival

– Benefit not proven

Digital Mammography

• Image acquisition with digital

detector instead

of film

• Advantages

– Reduced need for

“call backs” and

repeat imaging – Reduced dose

of radiation

– Digital image processing

• Allows manipulation of image

contrast

• Subtle contrast differences

enhanced

• Advantages (cont.)

– Post-imaging processing

• Image storage

– CAD

– Teleradiology

• Disadvantages

– Lower spatial resolution

– Cost

Film vs Digital

Film Digital

Digital Mammography Trial

• 49,528 women in US and Canada

– Screening film and digital mammography

• 33 mammography sites

– Breast cancer status based on biopsy within

15 months

• Results

– Overall, diagnostic accuracy was similar

– Digital better accuracy in women

• Under 50

• With extremely dense breasts

• Premenopausal or perimenopausal

Pisano ED, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1773-1783.

Emerging Technology:

Breast Tomosynthesis

• Tomosynthesis is a 3-

dimensional digital

mammographic technique

• Detector remains stationary

while the tube moves

• Acquires data through a series

of 11 positions through a 50

degree arch

• Detector “reads out” the

captured information to create

an image

Park J M et al. Radiographics 2007;27:S231-S240 ©2007 by Radiological Society of North America

Breast Tomosynthesis

• Clinical Trials

– increased lesion visibility

– facilitation of margin analysis

– reduction in call-back rate from screening

– lesion location

– Will require imagers to acquire experience in reading 3D

Summary

• The goal of breast cancer screening is

early detection

• Mammography has significantly

contributed to earlier diagnosis

• Increasing use of other modalities in

breast imaging for screening, particularly

for high risk women